USA – TENNESSEE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Alisa Chestler, Matthew White and Andrew Droke, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
Conclusion Tennessee’s privacy and data protection landscape has expanded significantly in recent years, and the pace of change shows no signs of slowing. From TIPA’s comprehensive consumer privacy framework to the state’s first-of-its-kind AI legislation, businesses operating in Tennessee must navigate a growing web of obligations that touch nearly every aspect of how they collect, use and safeguard personal data. While this guide has addressed the state’s generally applicable privacy, data security and technology laws, businesses should also be mindful that additional requirements may apply depending on their industry. For example, entities in the healthcare, financial ser - vices, insurance and education sectors may be sub - ject to overlapping federal and state requirements that impose additional or more specific data protection obligations. Given the breadth and evolving nature of these requirements, businesses should regularly assess their compliance posture, invest in robust pri - vacy and security programmes, and monitor legisla - tive developments to stay ahead of new obligations as they arise.
tions already given to name, photograph and likeness. The term “voice” includes “a sound in a medium that is readily identifiable and attributable to a particular individual, regardless of whether the sound contains the actual voice or a simulation of the voice of the individual”. As a result of the updates, the unauthor - ised use of an individual’s name, photograph, voice or likeness gives rise to a civil claim, and the violation is also a Class A misdemeanour. The ELVIS Act also established a cause of action that can be asserted against providers of AI tools whose “primary purpose or function” is producing an individual’s photograph, voice or likeness without proper authorisation. This provision may subject cer - tain AI technology providers to a new form of liability, although the “primary purpose or function” require - ment remains somewhat ambiguous. Tennessee also adopted education-specific require - ments related to AI in 2024, requiring all state univer - sities, local education agencies, and public charter schools to adopt policies regarding the use of AI by students, teachers and staff. Additionally, in 2025, the state required the Department of Education to develop guidance on social media and internet safety, includ - ing the importance of evaluating AI-generated infor - mation and understanding the potential for misinfor - mation. Finally, while the state’s current AI-related legislation is relatively narrow in scope, the Tennessee legislature appears poised to enact further AI-related legislation. The legislature is currently considering bills that would: • prohibit AI systems from being advertised as quali - fied mental health professionals; • criminalise training AI to, among other items, encourage suicide or homicide, act as a licensed health professional, or develop emotional relation - ships with individuals; and • require disclaimers in political advertising contain - ing AI-generated content and deepfakes. It is unclear which, if any, of these bills will become law, but businesses must be mindful of the new and emerging requirements applicable to AI in Tennessee.
613 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook